What's wrong with the post "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SCA COMBAT-SYSTEM"
Conrad Claus
> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SCA COMBAT-SYSTEM
>
> SCA combat rules encourage fallacies and misconceptions as to what
> combat and skill is all about:
>
> 1. Fighting is not done in the manner it claims to be simulating
> --great helms and full plate armor vs. "chain mail and open-faced
> helms".
Here in Antir at least we are all considered to be wearing mail and open
faced helms.
BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a supposedly
informed discussion regarding period armor and fighting. ("Mail,"
"linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much better upon the education of
the speaker.)
>
> 2. Only (costly) armor (padding) is permitted in fighting --for
> safety or because of the rule structure?
>
What do you mean here?
> 3. The use of armor is lost and meaningless without being able to
> contrast it with fighting unarmored
> opponents! (which the system can't allow) --otherwise what's the point?
The use of armor is lost in SCA combat because we do not perform our
fighting in a manner which approximates period armor use. Period fighting,
even against folks with mail, tended to be a affair where cumulative
effects of many blows tended to be very important. For safety reasons
(and also to allow for a workable contest) we do a "one-shot-you-are
dead" system. Given the obvious disadvantages of allowing people to
fight till they are overwhelmed by the number of shots, I prefer the SCA
system.
> 4. Using an exclusively armored full-contact system loses the
> elements of "hesitation" as there is little
> cautiousness or apprehension in delivering any attack. This
> promotes a wild abandon over finesse and
> precision. The stylistic "bashing away at each other" is a response
> to this situation.
>
Total hogwash. One good shot kills. That leads to tons of hesitation
and range games, almost surely more than was experienced in period. I
think here you may have reversed your arguement, SCA combat leads to too
much hesitation and cautiousness and apprehension.
> 5. Hits are subjectively based on "feeling it" through armor --which
> reinforces the notion that impact power and "toughness" in not
> feeling blows, are the crucial factors in true battling.
>
This is a problem, but excepting a poison-lightsaber approach like USFA
fencing where *any* shot kills or some *very* expensive sensing gear, I
am at a loss for how this can be cured. Do you have a solution? BTW -
there is a fairly strong corrective mechanism in the SCA - while the
recipient is the judge of any particular blow, there are some formal and
informal disincentives for a fighter to establish a long term pattern of
not accepting blows.
> 6. The snapping, bashing style of swordplay, revealing an ignorance
> between clubbing and cutting with a blade, derives from lack of a
> proper blade edge and a belief in the role of power as being
> all-important in skill. It has evolved into little more than
> ritualized stick-fighting.
>
This is an interesting point.
First, *many* combat systems have relied on sticks to approximate
swordplay, whether it be western singlestick play or the many eastern
systems using cane or rattan. Frankly, I find Kali's use of rattan to
train for blade work (for example) to be a little bit more convincing than
the kibbitzing of modern live steel "experts."
Second, quite a few folks in the SCA plane their swords so that anythign
but a blow on the striking edge will feel wrong (and not be accepted).
Third, even if SCA fighting completely ignored edge orientation, I think
it a fair trade for being able to strike hard with the rattan.
Fourth, while SCA combat does not focus on "cutting" (at least
drawcuts) the orientation of period armored fighting also appears to
focus much more on a smashing style of blow rather than more finesse
oriented edge cuts.
> 7. There is no discernible edge on swords --this induces improper technique.
Wrong. Some folks do not maintain a discernable edge on their sticks,
some of us go to some lengths to establish an edge.
> 8. Sword weight and balance is not authentic --too light and too
> much in the hilt (again, do to rule-induced style, not reality).
Depends on the swords. Look into Oakshott's book on Chivalric swords;
many SCA sticks balance darn close to some common forms of period swords
and weigh pretty close to the same as well.
> 9. Swords are placed on shoulders as an "on-guard" position in order
> to "snap it out" and often placed on top of shields with the palm
> turned up --these are incorrect and useless when cutting with real
> swords.
>
Respectfully, this statement reflects a fairly profound ignorance regarding
actual period fighting. The sword on the shoulder position is a fairly
common variation of one of the most common period guards. This guard is
called the "reach-back" guard by Ray Smith in his recent dissertation
regarding period fighting and is also known as the "Harmodious Guard"
from a statue from Hellenic Greece where it was identified (BTW - as the
*earliest* identifiable systematic sword guard).
> 10. Favoring short short-swords and large large-shields is
> inaccurate (and idiosyncratic of "techniques from rule-parameters").
We do not see much short short-swords and large large-shields in AnTir.
In fact, our regulations regarding shield size leads to the use of
shields which are *considerably* smaller than most period shields used on
foot before the introduction of full plate armor. (Which is after the
period our armor recreates).
Further, respectfully, an observation that SCA swords tend to be "short
short-swords" also reveals a fairly profound ignorance regarding sword
lengths in use in period during the period we recreate. Most SCA weapons
are actually a little (to a lot) longer than the period weapons they
recreate.
> 11. Saber/bell-cup guards are used on swords (and even glaives and
> shields) --this is not medieval or
> historically accurate but stems from safety requirements and favored
> techniques.
>
Hmm...
This one is fairly close to the mark. The introduction of baskets tends
to encourage techniques which were less common in period. In terms of
our "reach back" guard it tends to be a little forward of where it was in
period. In terms of our "high guard" (with the sword held over the
shield accross the face) it appears to be a derivation of the old St.
George's guard with the sword also moved forward (rather than over the
head). It is hard to argue this point, other than to say that the safety
value of baskets appears to outweigh to inaccuracies they encourage.
> 12. There is a lack of missile weapons (spears/bows) --they aren't
> "safe".
Yes, but the missle weapons we do have are *way* overvalued, which tends
to lead to a balancing out effect.
Archers often must get "permission" from their targets to
> fire.
What do you mean here. Around here our archers almost uniformly attack
when their opponent is not looking.
There is no great variety of weapons with discernable blades
> or shapes (axes/spears/flails/etc.)
Wrong. Tons of axes, polearms, shaped swords, maces, falchions, etc.
--no "safe" design has been
> developed.
Wrong.
Great weapons/pole-arms are also limited to 90 degree
> swings.
>
Yep. For safety reasons. I think the theory behind Judo, wrestling,
western boxing and SCA heavy fighting is fundamentally sound. You get
better faster if you use techniques at near full speed in a free form
environment where your "partner" is trying to stop you and take advantage
of your mistakes. You cannot practice without partners. Certain
techniques, when incorporated into full speed sparring are dangerous
enough to create a large risk of injuring partners. Thus, the 90 degree
rule.
> 13. No lower leg strikes (or even foot hits) are allowed! --this is
> limiting, unrealistic and promotes a
> misunderstanding of weapon application.
>
See above.
> 14. Fighting is done on knees or sitting down when wounded! --this
> is silly, far-fetched, and encourages its use as a pseudo-tactic.
Umm.. to some degree agreed.
> Vulnerable feet are blatantly ignored as well.
Very much agreed.
SCA light-weapons
> fencers also fight on their knees when hit there, even though rapier
> thrusts are almost incapable of disabling legs.
>
Not true. Where could you possibly get this idea?
> 15. No more than four opponents are allowed on any one target and
> because of fictitious "chivalry", no attacks are ever made from
> behind!
>
Frankly, "Chivalry" is used as a cover up for the real reason: safety.
BTW - chivalry is not fictitious.
> 16. The hand is off target --yet often used to "guard" the head.
A problem indeed. However, there is adequate evidence from historical
sources to indicate that the sword arm was used to protect the head or
other body area in some guards.
> 17. Light-weapon fencers make "draw-cuts" with their epee' "rapiers"
> even though historical rapiers had little or virtually no edge
> capable of doing so.
>
This here statement again reflects a *huge* ignorance of period rapiers.
Most historical rapiers did indeed have an edge capable of delivering
draw cuts (and also conventional chopping style blows). Frankly, SCA
light fighting has some problems, but one of them was not that period
rapiers could not deliver a cut, draw or otherwise. Perhaps you are
confusing out of SCA period smallswords (which, in some permutations of
their design, did not have an edge) with SCA period rapiers.
> 18. SCA combat in all forms either dismisses or ignores the
> distinctive Renaissance cut & thrust form of
> swordsmanship, and instead incorporates its elements into both their
> heavy and light weapons. This is
> misleading and unfortunate.
>
What are you saying here? First you say the SCA ignores it, then you say
it incorporates it; which is it? Can you be more specific (and also more
clear)?
> 19. The combat rules get thicker and more restricting every year
> instead of becoming streamlined or more
> usable.
>
Ya, as we learn more and more regarding safety the rules change. Same
things happens with any institutionalized combat sport/art.
> 20. The process to petition or innovate combat rules is rigid,
> bureaucratic and biased towards the conservative status quo.
As it should be.
"Rigid" is an appellation always applied to rules
people do not like. Why not look at it this way, if it is a *rule*, it
shouldn't change at a person's whim.
"Bureaucratic" because legal liability is indeed a concern of any
rational American.
"Conservatively biased" because the SCA has thirty years of experience
to draw upon. This means that people have had a chance to work out what
is safe, what isn't, what works, what doesn't. Most organizations whith
that kind of past to draw upon tend to approach rule changes somewhat
conservatively.
> Additionally, unskilled, non-combatant apologists and sycophants
> assert themselves as authorities by mere association with fighters.
Frankly, that is not as bad as folks who have no idea of the realities of
historical combat asserting themselves as experts in that area.
>
> Stop whining, crying and arguing. The bottom line is only HOW GOOD
> YOU ARE IN COMBAT!
>
What kind of combat are you talking about? In any case, respectfully, the
only whining and crying I see going on is coming from you.
Conrad, who disclaims any copyright in the above materials and maintains a
right to quote from "J. Clements" (or Todd Palmer's) *supposedly*
copyrighted materials under the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act.
> "Even the loveliest shoe makes a terrible hat"
>
> Copyright 1995 by J. Clements. All Rights Reserved.
> HACA (Historical Amred Combat Association - Houston
> 2023 S. Gessner, M2, Houston TX 77063
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serjeant Squire Conrad Breakring of Ascalon, Terra Pomaria, An Tir
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many of us have been told not to fight a duel of wits with an unarmed man.
Most of us do not realize the essential truth this is based upon is not that
it would be unfair to the unarmed man; rather it would be unfair to us, for
it requires a modicum of wits for someone to understand when they have lost
the duel, making the unarmed indefatigable (if inept) opponents."
- Me (to myself, following a recent thread)
rudi...@utdallas.edu
> BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a supposedly
> informed discussion regarding period armor and fighting. ("Mail,"
> "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much better upon the education of
> the speaker.)
"Chain-mail" is in the Oxford English Dictionary, published in the 1920s
(listed under "chain"). They provide an example of the term from 1855.
The term is also found in George Cameron Stone's *A Glossary of the
Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor*, usually taken as an
informed discussion regarding period armor.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
: On 10 Mar 1996, Todd Palmer wrote:
: BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a supposedly
: informed discussion regarding period armor and fighting. ("Mail,"
: "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much better upon the education of
: the speaker.)
What does "Gygaxism" mean?
While admittedly "chain mail" is not the best term, nevertheless, I have
seen the term used in books on armour.
By contrast, I have never seen the term "linked mail". It seems utterly
redundant, where did you get it?
Nahum
TRISTAN CLAIR DE LUNE/KEN MONDSCHEIN
>Conrad Claus (ccl...@willamette.edu) wrote:
>: On 10 Mar 1996, Todd Palmer wrote:
>
>: BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a supposedly
>: "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much better upon the education of
>: the speaker.)
>
It means lifted from Gary Gygax, q.v., ed., etc., vis., see
above, creator of Dungeons of Dragons, and whose sense of how to use
those little editorial snippets was nil...
>While admittedly "chain mail" is not the best term, nevertheless, I have
>seen the term used in books on armour.
Well, Gary got 'em from the 19th century works... where they
still thought "banded mail" was a real thing.
Gary has messed up the heads of several generations of potential
armor historians...
>By contrast, I have never seen the term "linked mail". It seems utterly
>redundant, where did you get it?
>
>Nahum
>
Some 19th century treatise...
--Tristan
Conrad Claus
> Conrad Claus (ccl...@willamette.edu) wrote:
> : BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a supposedly
> : informed discussion regarding period armor and fighting. ("Mail,"
> : "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much better upon the education of
> : the speaker.)
>
> The redundant term "chain mail" predates E. Gary Gygax by a good bit -- trust
> me. ;-)
Do not need to trust you - it is largely a product of 18th Century
romantics. However, Gygax popularized it and I think it can fairly be
called a "Gygaxism."
Conrad
>
> Lyle FitzWilliam
> Bergental, East
> ------------------------------------------------------ NON ANIMAM CONTINE
> Lyle H. Gray Internet (personal): gr...@cs.umass.edu
> Phone: (860) 728-6777, FAX: (860) 247-0249
> --(My opinions are my own, and do not represent my employer's opinions)--
Conrad Claus
> Conrad Claus (ccl...@willamette.edu) wrote:
> > BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a supposedly
> > informed discussion regarding period armor and fighting. ("Mail,"
> > "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much better upon the education of
> > the speaker.)
>
> "Chain-mail" is in the Oxford English Dictionary, published in the 1920s
> (listed under "chain"). They provide an example of the term from 1855.
> The term is also found in George Cameron Stone's *A Glossary of the
> Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor*, usually taken as an
> informed discussion regarding period armor.
>
> Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
Lots of older materials use "chain mail." However, it is *today*
considered passe and a little ignorant.
Conrad
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
: In article <4i7719$o...@news.nyu.edu>, nqf...@is2.nyu.edu (Norman J. Finkelshteyn) writes:
: >Conrad Claus (ccl...@willamette.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a supposedly
: >: "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much better upon the education of
: >: the speaker.)
: >What does "Gygaxism" mean?
: It means lifted from Gary Gygax, q.v., ed., etc., vis., see
: above, creator of Dungeons of Dragons, and whose sense of how to use
: those little editorial snippets was nil...
Thank's, I suspected it was something like that.
: >While admittedly "chain mail" is not the best term, nevertheless, I have
: >seen the term used in books on armour.
: Well, Gary got 'em from the 19th century works... where they
: still thought "banded mail" was a real thing.
Hey, wait a minute, I thought we both agreed with Ffoulkes that it was a
real thing (whether you call it "banded mail" or make up some other term)
: Gary has messed up the heads of several generations of potential
: armor historians...
No he hasn't. Those of us who want to do the history do so. Those who
read D&D manuals as history either correct their mistake later in life,
or they didn't particularly care to.
: >By contrast, I have never seen the term "linked mail". It seems utterly
: >redundant, where did you get it?
: >
: Some 19th century treatise...
I have both good Old ones (though not nec. 19th cent.), you have at least
one (Ffoulkes and Stone). I have also seen a few not so good ones in the
NYU library. I don't remember anyone using the term "linked mail". I
think that the term would not really make sence even with their
mistaken identifications of the different types.
Nahum
WMclean290
>"Chain-mail" is in the Oxford English Dictionary, published in the 1920s
>(listed under "chain"). They provide an example of the term from 1855.
>The term is also found in George Cameron Stone's *A Glossary of the
>Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor*, usually taken as an
>informed discussion regarding period armor.
Actually, Stone can be pretty dreadfull in places. But the point is that
mail was never, ever called "chain mail" by the people that actually made
it or used it. It's a not uncommon modern usage, so it's in the
dictionaries. But a medieval knight would never have called it that. He
would have just called it mail.
Galleron
DAVID RAZLER
NJ>Conrad Claus (ccl...@willamette.edu) wrote:
NJ>: On 10 Mar 1996, Todd Palmer wrote:
NJ>: BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a
NJ>: supposedly informed discussion regarding period armor and
NJ>: fighting. ("Mail," "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much
NJ>: better upon the education of the speaker.)
NJ>What does "Gygaxism" mean?....
NJ>Nahum
Gygaxism (n, lim. use. noted @1974) Element of poorly-researched or
simplified fantasies or games based on same of the "Sword and Sorcery"
school (q.v.) adopted into general usage. See also Elves, Pointy-eared.
Steve Muhlberger
> NJ>: supposedly informed discussion regarding period armor and
> NJ>: fighting. ("Mail," "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much
> NJ>: better upon the education of the speaker.)
>
> NJ>What does "Gygaxism" mean?....
>
>
It's unfair to blame Gygax for the phrase "chain mail." It was around
long before he was.
Finnvarr
Tom Gibson
: Actually, the use of "chain-mail" can be traced to Victorian usage, insofar
: as I have noticed. This pre-dates Gygax ........ <grin>
Poo-poo'ing the term "chainmail" is an old pastime. There is plenty of
reason (besides common usage and the chance to confuse people by
specifying "mail" as a protection [how could a letter protect you from a
sword?]), and that is that there were more than one kind of linked metal
armor. (I'm sure I'll be demanded of exact sources, well go fine 'em
yourselffffs!) There is bar mail (bars linked by loops at the ends into
square or triangualr patterns), scale mail (plates linked together rather
than sewn or rivetted to a base, and plate mail (apparently a bunch of
dinner plates linked together by G. Gygax ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha ha!).
- Warren of the Just Plain
100% mail, and proud of it!
Michael A. Chance
>Actually, the use of "chain-mail" can be traced to Victorian usage, insofar
>as I have noticed. This pre-dates Gygax ........ <grin>
Oh, I don't know. While the term certainly pre-dates his *usage*, I'm
not so sure about it predating *him*. Gygax, if nothing else,
resembles an overgrown gnome, and we all know how long *they* live.
8-)
Mikjal Annarbjorn
--
Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields
Work: mc3...@sw1stc.sbc.com of St. Vidicon"
Play: mch...@crl.com
Daeymion
:
: : BTW - "chain mail" is a Gygaxism and shouldn't be used in a supposedly
: : "linked mail" or even "chain" reflects much better upon the education of
: : the speaker.)
: What does "Gygaxism" mean?
: While admittedly "chain mail" is not the best term, nevertheless, I have
: seen the term used in books on armour.
: redundant, where did you get it?
:
:
I belive he is refering to Gary Gygax's(The author of The Chain Mail
Supplement Which went World wide called Dungeon & Dragons).
He used the Word ChainMail, Completely redundant as is linked mail,
as Mail The word it self, means The armor itself and needs no further
accompainement, aside from perhaps a descriptive term, Bronze mail Or
Copper Mail.
-Daeymion
Tom Gibson
: long before he was.
: Finnvarr
Yeah, there's plenty more we can blame gygax for. :-)
- Warren of the Just Plain
More "platemail" than you can shake a spetum at.
Warlordinc
Daryle Pompeo
> What's wrong with giving an item a modern and practical name?
Because this defeats the entire purpose of our Society.
----
Sir Severin Visconti DiMilano
Wyvernwood, Trimaris
Tom Gibson
: Because this defeats the entire purpose of our Society.
The purpose of our society is to keep others from knowing that we're
talking about a telephone or automobile?
- Warren of the Just Plain
Writing this on a Box_Which_Thinks_But_Not_Always.
Dick Eney
as correctly as we can. Talking overtly about non-medieval objects breaks
the mood, ends the suspension of disbelief. Talking covertly about them
is almost as bad, but not quite, because it at least reminds us what game
we're playing.
-- Tamar the Gypsy (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
communicating with the aid of a fine demonstration of Natural Philosophy
DAVID RAZLER
W>я@FROM :warlo...@aol.com
W>What's wrong with giving an item a modern and practical name?
W>
As far as I'm concerned, nothing when used in modern conversation (I
*jokingly* posted the original definition after someone asked what a
Gygaxism)
Unlike clear language errors like 'graphical' or 'chain mail,' it is a
word poking fun at a particular individual that may well end up a
permanent part of the language, like gerrymander or boycott.
But at SCA events, it should be evicted along with troll, slum lord,
dragon, etc.
AtT/dmr